Willard “Mitt” Romney: Double Guantanamo For Us All

I don’t like Mitt Romney. Here’s a piece I wrote about him:

—

Willard Mitt Romney: Worst of Several Evils

 

            I try to make no secret about my disdain for the field of Republican presidential candidates in this race; I mean, I have little love for Republicans in general, but this group of candidates is particularly piss-poor (if anyone sends me an email saying “Maybe you haven’t heard of a certain man named RONPAUL,” it’s going straight in the trash can). But if there’s a single one of them wherein the thought of him becoming president actually scares me, it’s former Massachusetts governor Willard “Mitt” Romney.

 

            First of all, a look at his tenure in political office is enough to scare any moderate away from him. His ascension to the position of Governor was due mostly to his vast personal wealth and the obvious glaring flaws of his competitors; like our esteemed George W. Bush, he vowed to run his executive branch “like a business” (if you want eight more years of a corporate boardroom-style White House, this is your man). In order to decrease the ballooning Massachusetts deficit, he initiated a bold tax plan: increase the fees on things regular people actually use (drivers’ licenses, marriage licenses, gas, etc) while cutting taxes for corporations. He also decided to slash funding for higher education, forcing colleges in the state to increase tuition by 63% and ensuring that you had to be even wealthier to get into college there. As a bonus, he worked for years to keep gay marriages banned in his state against the wishes of the legislature, courts and general populace; he obviously supports the notion of a unilateral executive championed by Bush and his Krazy Konservative Krew. Romney ended his term as Governor with a 28% approval rating, which is even lower than our current president’s.

 

            Most frightening in my eyes, though, is Romney’s strong puritan streak. His position on social issues ranging from gay rights to torture are reactionary almost to the point of being Draconian, and he has made it clear that he would use all of the powers of the presidency to make federal law conform to his backwards beliefs. His exuberance on this matter is probably due partially to the suspicion Christian conservatives hold against him due to his being a Mormon; as a result, he has positioned himself to work harder for their oppressive cause than the only actual evangelical in the race, Mike Huckabee, who has proven to be more moderate in his policies than in his religious beliefs.

 

            As bad as the Bush presidency has been for the cause of civil rights and sound policy in this country, I fear that President Romney would do his predecessor one worse. I plea to any Republicans reading this: unless you want America to become a “Double Guantanamo,” cast your vote for someone, anyone else.

Give’em Hell, Gravel

In a sudden twist of hate, Sen. Mike Gravel came to my university today for a brief forum. 

 

I was quite impressed with him; his oratory style and the urgency with which he communicates the flaws in American democracy just don’t get across in the terrible debate formats in which I’m used to seeing him. He seems to pay much more attention to the issues than most of his rivals, and really educates himself in the technicalities of the problems facing us today. One note of interest was his “National Initiative” plan, which would give citizens more direct power in forming federal laws. I was a bit skeptical, given the shoddy state of such systems on many state levels, but in his decade of writing the bill, he has really streamlined things. If you’re interested, click that link and vote for the amendment electronically.

Why Personality Matters

Well, I’m back to writing opinion pieces for the campus paper. Here’s my first submission for the semester:

–

Every time an election rolls around, I hear a familiar complaint: “Why does the media focus so much on the candidates’ personal lives and personalities? They should just stick to the issues!” Analysts and pundits alike scoff at the notion of voters basing their choices on which candidate they’d like to have a beer with, also stressing that one’s choice in political candidate should be based wholly on policy stances. I can understand why people are frustrated about the media’s apparent fixation on frivolous personal details of politicians, especially in our current post-Lewinsky political climate. But we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater; personality can and should be one of many important factors we must consider when choosing an elected official, especially in the case of the president.

 

            One of the most important functions of the president is to serve as the public face and voice of the nation. More than anyone else, the president shapes foreign nations’ perception of the state of our government, and is expected to firmly lead the country in times of war and peace. Regardless of a candidate’s knowledge of domestic and foreign affairs, an ineffectual and indecisive personality will negatively impact their effectiveness in achieving their goals. Jimmy Carter, who was incredibly intelligent on the issues and public policy but proved too weak of a personality to accomplish much of anything, is a perfect example of this.

 

            Sometimes, a president’s stances and policies are overshadowed, positively or negatively, by significant personal character traits. Take JFK and Nixon: Kennedy is widely remembered as a great president mostly on account of his inspirational, larger-than-life charm and personality. For “image presidents” like himself and Reagan, the sense of optimism and leadership represented by their personalities were at least as important as the success or failure of any of their political initiatives. Conversely, Nixon accomplished many great policy initiatives—ending the Vietnam War, quietly increasing the pace of desegregation, founding the EPA—but his megalomanic, paranoid personality and raw thirst for power led him to massively abuse his position and secure his place among the worst presidents ever.

 

            Of course, while personality shouldn’t be ignored when choosing a candidate, it shouldn’t be the only factor, or even the primary one; voting for someone just because “he seems presidential” is a recipe for disaster. Just like single issue abortion or gun rights voters, single issue personality voters have the potential of electing terrible candidates with only one redeeming quality. Personal character should be on equal footing with any policy stance or initiative; and so, like with any political stance, the media does us a favor by trying their hardest to give us a glimpse into the true characters of our candidates.

Okay, I Can’t Resist This Ron Paul News

For months, Ron Paul supporters have been denying their candidate’s involvement in various racist, homophobic, conspiracy-laden newsletters printed from the 1970s to the 1990s; these newsletters, which sported names such as Ron Paul Political Report and Ron Paul Survival Report and many of which were published by “Ron Paul and Associates,” were initially defended by the good doctor as being “taken out of context,” but in 2001 he changed his story and claimed not to have written them at all. His fanatical supporters, who attack the neoconservatives in government for their falsifications, for some reason have no problem buying this incredibly unbelievable line.

Today, though, The New Republic reported on some elusive copies of this obscure newsletter, with Ron Paul’s name plastered all over the place and current members of his 2008 campaign staff in the publishing information. The content of these articles is far more hateful and nutty than anyone could have guessed:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Don’t be surprised if the link doesn’t work. I’ve had a lot of trouble accessing it thanks to what appears to be a mass DDoS attack by Paul’s cyber-crusaders (defending liberty through coercive censorship!). If you can’t get the link up, here are some choice selections:

—

-”Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.”

-”This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.”

-”In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives.” (This really puts Hillary Clinton’s recent statements in perspective. Her comments about MLK may have been bad, but she’s not even in the same ballpark as this dude)

-”Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul’s newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul’s “old colleague,” Congressman William Dannemeyer–who advocated quarantining people with AIDS–praising him for “speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby.” In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine “who certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.” In an item titled, “The Pink House?” the author of a newsletter–again, presumably Paul–complained about President George H.W. Bush’s decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite “the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,” adding, “I miss the closet.” “Homosexuals,” it said, “not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

-”The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, “a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby,” and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted “a well-known Libertarian editor” as saying, “The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is ‘Silence = Death.’ But shouldn’t it be ‘Sodomy = Death’?”

— 

There’s a lot more, so look up the whole article if you can (I’m sure the TNR servers will recover from the Paul supporters’ attack shortly). Seriously, though, even if Paul’s BS about these newsletters being written by a “ghostwriter” are true, it means that he’s so incompetent that he allowed this drivel to be published under his name for decades. This guy isn’t fit to serve as a member of Congress, let alone as president.

Hillary Clinton Marginalizes MLK’s Role in the Civil Rights Movement

I’ve got to try to spread this one.

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/01/07/clinton-talks-tears-with-fox-news/

Click the link, go down to the video, skip to about 3:50, listen to her answer.

I’ve gotta say, this is pretty dumb on multiple levels. First of all, to create a contrast between MLK and LBJ with the former being a “man of words” and the latter being a “man of actions” is a spit in the face to Dr. King and the years he spent on the street organizing protests, rallying the populace, being beaten and abused, and changing the public’s attitude towards the cause of civil rights. Secondly, how dumb do you have to be to compare your opponent to MLK as a negative? And third, how dumb do you have to be to do that when you’re white and your opponent is black? The general stupidity of her statement aside, there’s no way it can bode well for Clinton when she frames her campaign against Obama by taking credit away from MLK and heaping an undue amount of praise on a shrivelled white dude (don’t get me wrong, LBJ did a lot for civil rights, but Clinton really, really skews his role).

I hope this gets noticed by more people and gets some time in the press, it’s one of the only gaffes I’ve seen from Clinton since this election began, and damn if it’s not a doozy.

Hey Guys, It Looks Like We’re Relevant Again

One of the factors of Thursday’s caucus that really excited me involved demographics: if Iowa is any indication, young people are voting again.

Both the 2004 and 2006 elections saw marked increases in turnout among voters aged 18-29. And this year, over three times more young people voted in the Iowa caucuses than in 2004. According to the latter article, the percentage of Iowa caucus-goers under 30 was about equal to the percentage of those over 65, challenging the perceived stranglehold of the elderly over elections. One of the biggest explanations given for this surge in young voting is the rise of instant mass communication, particularly through the internet, that exposes us to constant barrages of information and can be used by politicians and pundits alike to raise awareness and outrage over hot-button issues.

For decades, now, younger people have been pretty much ignored by most politicians due to their political apathy, and those who tried to rely on young voters tended to get screwed over by low turnout (ie: Howard Dean). This is a far cry from the 1960s, when college students were a nexus of political zeal and the focus of media attention. In comparison to that bygone era, college campuses today seem to be hotbeds of apathy. To quote a spoken-word track from the Dead Kennedys: “We’ve got our college kids so interested in beer, they don’t even care if we start manufacturing germ bombs again! Put a nuclear stockpile in their backyard, they wouldn’t even know what it looks like!” It seemed like the political passion faded with Vietnam and was rendered insignificant by the time of the “Reagan Revolution” (a friend of mine recently argued that college kids were only such crusaders during the 1960s because their asses were personally on the line with Vietnam and the draft, which may be partially accurate).

But now, young people are starting to creep back into the scene, and, as one would guess, we tend to be liberal.  This is bad news not just for the Republicans, but also for the Democratic party’s old-guard establishment, as Iowa showed us: young people flocked disproportionally towards Barack Obama, largely skipping Hillary Clinton, who had practically been coronated by the old party faithful months ago. This, coupled with the almost entirely youth-based Ron Paul movement (I won’t get into it here, I feel like I talk too much about the guy already), suggest a demographic more concerned with ideals than traditional political credentials. People have been demanding “change” every election since…ever…but with the help of an energized youth vote, we may just see it happen in 2008; could a new, more powerful progressive voting bloc be in the cards for the future?

A Look at Iowa: Wherein the Bloggist Gloats Over His Candidate’s Victory

It’s been awhile since I posted on this thing, but I just noticed a request for some post-Iowa thoughts, so I guess it’s as good a time as any to start up the blog-train again.

First off, let me bask in the smug self-satisfaction that comes from my preferred candidate passing the first test of the electoral season with flying colors. Obama’s performance this past year has been amazing; he ran just the kind of campaign necessary to unseat the practically coronated Clinton after starting the race 30 points behind. Through his sheer likeability and his charming “politics of hope” rhetoric, he established himself as a solid second place candidate without drawing practically any criticism from his rivals; after all, it wouldn’t pay to attack such a positive figure. Of course, after his position as frontrunner was more than secure, he was able to go right for Clinton’s throat, joining with Edwards to change the Democratic contest from “choose from 8 candidates of change” to “choose between the ESTABLISHMENT, man and 7 candidates of change (but especially Obama).

Now that he’s got a solid W under his belt, I’m hoping we’ll start to hear the end of the “America isn’t ready for a black president” shit. As far as race goes, it’s hard to get much more whitebred than Iowa, and if they’re comfortable with a black president, I think we can lay the suspicions to rest.

“But wait, what about the South?” First off all, rhetorical device question man, as Thomas Schaller argues, the Democrats really don’t need the South to win national elections. And second of all, it’s not like any of those states have any chance of swinging towards Clinton; I doubt the issue of race will cause Obama to lose the vital Democratic stronghold of Alabama.

A final note of gloating: Obama’s Iowa victory seems to be giving him some much-needed momentum in the upcoming primary contests; the first post-Iowa Rasmussen poll in New Hampshire puts him 10 points ahead of Clinton (sorry for second-hand link, Rasmussen’s page seems to be down right now).

I haven’t been paying as much attention to the Republican contest as I probably should, but I can’t help but think (and hope) that Iowa will be a notable fluke. Democrats seem to consider Huckabee an easy opponent in the general, but I’m worried about him; he’s got that folksy charm that made people notice him in the first place, and as we’ve seen in Iowa, his crazy-ass social views really seem to energize the Christian right. I personally think someone like Romney or Giuliani would be more beatable thanks to the lackluster response they’ve received from the true believers.

And finally, since this blog seems to have so much Ron Paul related material already, let me just take a minute to say how hilarious it’s been reading the reactions from his internet supporters to his 5th place finish in Iowa. Personally, I think 10% is pretty respectable considering where Paul started and how exclusive his message is, but it seems as though many of his supporters were firmly under the belief that he was going to pull off a win, evil mainstream “polls” and “reality” be damned. The growing screams of massive voter fraud (designed specifically to neutralize the Ron Paul “threat”) have been the best; a common point of outrage has been the reports of the caucus results being tabulated in a central computer system maintained by–gasp–a firm based in Israel. “Damn you, international Zionist banking collective! Why must you stretch your reptilian fingers over the American political process once again? That’s it, I’m going back into my bunker.”

 In my next post, I’ll talk about a very uplifting demographic development that came to a head in Thursday’s caucus.